Explosive New Hernandez Details

[BSR]

Judge impounds records in homicide probe near Hernandez home | Boston Herald

Garbage maneuver by the judge.

This is what happens when a drove of moronic sports reports descends on a small district court. They've probably had to field hundreds of stupid information requests.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Why? The judge realizes that any type of information will become sensationalized by the overzealous media because Hernandez is a public figure. Clearly the media has failed to cover this situation with any concern for accuracy. Allowing the release of records is going to get everyone riled up again. In addition, the police may be trying some angle that involves secrecy by not telling certain suspects about what others have/ have not said.

Maybe I am missing your viewpoint...please do explain. I ask this in a respectful tone.

The standards for doing something like this are pretty high. Not wanting to deal with overzealous press is not adequate. There are first amendment issues at stake, and also issues related to the public's access to judicial proceedings.

To make this happen, the prosecutors would have had to make a pretty strong showing -- there are mainly two avenues: (1) that without secrecy an ongoing investigation will be compromised, or (2) something has happened or will happen that will poison the potential jury pool. Number 2 seems unlikely.

I wouldn't be surprised if a media outlet were to challenge this ruling by appealing it. That's usually how these play out.

 

[nowayback]

Maybe someone can clear this up for me....they found a gun near the body of Lloyd; however they are still looking for the murder weapon..or another gun? or maybe just the mirror?

 

[belichick010405]

The standards for doing something like this are pretty high. Not wanting to deal with overzealous press is not adequate. There are first amendment issues at stake, and also issues related to the public's access to judicial proceedings.

To make this happen, the prosecutors would have had to make a pretty strong showing -- there are mainly two avenues: (1) that without secrecy an ongoing investigation will be compromised, or (2) something has happened or will happen that will poison the potential jury pool. Number 2 seems unlikely.

I wouldn't be surprised if a media outlet were to challenge this ruling by appealing it. That's usually how these play out.

There are plenty of exceptions to the 1st Amendment rule regarding the sealing of evidence as well as court docket information.

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606–07 (1982); Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 288, 292 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124; United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1112 (3d Cir. 1985); Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir. 1987); Grove Fresh Distribs, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994); In re Search Warrant, 855 F.2d 569, 575 (8th Cir. 1988); Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1211 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 814 (10th Cir. 1997); Chi- cago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001).

Also, you will find this in the Copeland case:

However, the fact that a document is filed in the court record does not necessarily mean that it will be accessible by the public.   In commenting on a court's power to restrict the public's access to court records, the United States Supreme Court held that “the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute” and that “every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and [that] access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper  purposes.”  Nixon, supra, 435 U.S. at 599, 98 S.Ct. 1306.4  The Court declined to “identify all the factors to be weighed in determining whether such access is appropriate,” but recognized that “the discretion as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”  Id.5 As we held in Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 00-1360 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 715, 721, regardless of the fact that the public records law does not contain any specific exceptions for records and documents maintained by this Court, this Court has a “constitutional, inherent duty and responsibility to regulate all facets of the practice of law,” which includes “the right to determine when and under what circumstances sensitive materials under our exclusive superintendency and control should be shielded from disclosure.”

First Amendment Architecture by Marvin Ammori :: SSRN

 

[pwes]

Maybe someone can clear this up for me....they found a gun near the body of Lloyd; however they are still looking for the murder weapon..or another gun? or maybe just the mirror?

The gun found was not the gun that shot him. No one knows who it belongs to.

 

[PP2]

The gun found was not the gun that shot him. No one knows who it belongs to.

To expand on this, the gun is also of the wrong caliber.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

There are plenty of exceptions to the 1st Amendment rule regarding the sealing of evidence.

Well, thanks for block quoting a Louisianna state case on a point that's not really inconsistent with anything that I said, I guess.

I'd also perhaps note that if you want to string cite cases, you really need to know what they say and not just pull them out of a source that cites them for a general proposition. I'm sure whatever you're quoting had some sentence that is supported by the string citation, but Globe Newspapers (the first and only supreme court case in your string cite) expressly rejected, on first amendment grounds, a Mass law sealing a courtroom in certain criminal cases. The Court's holding was that the public has a strong interest in free access to criminal trials, and the state can only seal those proceedings for compelling reasons where no reasonable less restrictive alternatives are present. Which is sort of the point I was making.

 

[Ring 6]

I said that if he obstructed justice then he could be charged and arrested so you got me there.

And based on the media reports, a warrant for his arrest was prepared for obstruction of justice because that is their interpretation on what a "paper warrant" is (not there is any such thing according to the Massachusetts Judicial System).

But hey - continue on that I felt that he was going to be charged with murder.

Carry on.

Did you or did you not say anyone who didn't believe he was going to be arrested on Friday was an idiot?
Very simple. That was my post, no need for all the rhetoric above. Did you say it?

 

[belichick010405]

Well, thanks for block quoting a Louisianna state case on a point that's not really inconsistent with anything that I said, I guess.

I'd also perhaps note that if you want to string cite cases, you really need to know what they say and not just pull them out of a source that cites them for a general proposition. I'm sure whatever you're quoting had some sentence that is supported by the string citation, but Globe Newspapers (the first and only supreme court case in your string cite) expressly rejected, on first amendment grounds, a Mass law sealing a courtroom in certain criminal cases. The Court's holding was that the public has a strong interest in free access to criminal trials, and the state can only seal those proceedings for compelling reasons where no reasonable less restrictive alternatives are present. Which is sort of the point I was making.

Here you go......

(e) Impounding Versus Sealing. In Pixley v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 827, 906 N.E.2d 320 (2009), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed the difference between impounding and sealing:

“The terms ‘impounded’ and ‘sealed’ are closely related and often used interchangeably, but are meaningfully different.

Under the Uniform Rules o[n] Impoundment Procedure 1708 (LexisNexis 2008), which governs impoundment in civil proceedings and guides practice in criminal matters as well, ‘impoundment’ means ‘the act of keeping some or all of the papers, documents, or exhibits, or portions thereof, in a case separate and unavailable for public inspection.’

Rule 1 of the Uniform Rules o[n] Impoundment Procedure. Consequently, an order of impoundment prevents the public, but not the parties, from gaining access to impounded material, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A document is normally or- dered ‘sealed’ when it is intended that only the court have access to the document, unless the court specifically orders limited disclosure.

Therefore, we directed in Commonwealth v. Martin, [423 Mass. 496, 505, 668 N.E.2d 825, 832 (1996),] that the record of the in camera hearing ‘should be kept, under seal.’ Similarly, we ordered that privileged psychological or counseling records of an alleged victim of a sexual assault be ‘retained in court under seal,’ but permitted defense counsel to have access pursuant to a strict protective order. Com- monwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122, 146, 859 N.E.2d 400, 419 (2006).”

Pixley v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. at 836 n.12, 906 N.E.2d at 328 n.12. Martin hearings are discussed in the note to Section 511(b), Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Privilege of a Witness. The Lampron-Dwyer protocol is summarized in Section 1108, Access to Third-Party Records Prior to Trial in Criminal Cases (Lampron-Dwyer Protocol).

 

[nowayback]

So we really know nothing....not if it was his gun, or fiingerprints on it, gsr on his hand.

The car? which car ? did he drive it there, was it left by someone else. they must know if he was murdered there, although i think we have heard he was moved. Body found near AH house 1 mile, would it make a diff if it 1/2 mile or 10? unless they found it in his yard. How about he dropped AH off after bar and drove to meet someone, of left AH house with uncle or friends? If AH left him there after he murdered him wouldnt someone have seen him walk home. or they went with 2 cars?

AH was with him at strip place/bar...that night? vid said they were having a good time, no arguments. Think vid prob confirms that.

Broken surv. sys. and phone at AH house....when were they broken and by whom? AH, finacee, uncle, friends?

Bla bla bla....

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Here you go.....

I have no idea what the holy heck you're talking about or what your point is.

 

[belichick010405]

Did you or did you not say anyone who didn't believe he was going to be arrested on Friday was an idiot?
Very simple. That was my post, no need for all the rhetoric above. Did you say it?

You are an idiot. Yes, you are.

 

[PP2]

I think you are mistaken in thinking that most care about the details of the warrant process. I know I certainly don't. What makes me angry is that the media erroneously filed news reports giving the impression that Hernandez was to be arrested soon. He wasn't. The media was wrong because THEY didn't ask the right questions or adequately learn about the warrant process. It is clear that we have an incompetent and lazy media that isn't really concerned with reporting meaningful, factual news. Given this and other recent experiences I have no idea how people put any trust in these media reports and I certainly don't know how anyone could begin to judge a person's guilt or innocence on them.

Looking at this from the point of view of law enforcement, I think they are happy that the media is acting this way, and may even have intentionally leaked that a warrant was going to be issued to get someone to make a false move, or slip. If the media has a lot of posters on this board frustrated or seeing red, then you have to think that they also have the instigators of the murder on edge.

If I remember correctly, it took 84 days between the time Vick was reported, and the conclusion of the investigation that resulted in Vick's arrest and subsequent trial.

I think that time is on the side of the investigators, and while the instigator have done well up to this point in withholding information or coming forth, it remains to be seen if they (or s/he) can sustain this over a long period of time, with consistent pressure, without cracking.

If nothing happens by the time training camp rolls around, I expect Hernandez will be "suspended pending results of the investigation."

 

[belichick010405]

Well, thanks for block quoting a Louisianna state case on a point that's not really inconsistent with anything that I said, I guess.

I'd also perhaps note that if you want to string cite cases, you really need to know what they say and not just pull them out of a source that cites them for a general proposition. I'm sure whatever you're quoting had some sentence that is supported by the string citation, but Globe Newspapers (the first and only supreme court case in your string cite) expressly rejected, on first amendment grounds, a Mass law sealing a courtroom in certain criminal cases. The Court's holding was that the public has a strong interest in free access to criminal trials, and the state can only seal those proceedings for compelling reasons where no reasonable less restrictive alternatives are present. Which is sort of the point I was making.

This section is more relevant in the public release of information regarding the Lloyd case:

(g) Production of Presumptively Privileged Records from Nonparties Prior to Trial in Criminal Cases.

Whenever a party in a criminal case seeks production of any records (privileged or nonprivileged) from nonparties prior to trial, Mass. R. Crim. P. 17(a)(2) must be satisfied. Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268, 806 N.E.2d 72, 76 (2004). See also Commonwealth v. Odgren, 455 Mass. 171, 187, 915 N.E.2d 215, 227 (2009).

When Mass. R. Crim. P. 17(a)(2) has been satisfied and a nonparty has produced records to the court, the protocol set forth in Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122, 139–147, 859 N.E.2d 400, 414–420 (2006), governs review or disclosure of presumptively privileged records by defense counsel.

To reference the forms promulgated by the Supreme Judicial Court, see Massachusetts Court System formsandguidelines/dwyerforms.html.

Cross-Reference: Section 1108, Access to Third-Party Records Prior to Trial in Criminal Cases (Lampron-Dwyer Protocol).

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/guide-to-evidence/1108.htm

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This section is more relevant in the public release of information regarding the Lloyd case:

I know you're responding to me, and I see you are typing or cutting and pasting a lot of words and stuff, but all I'm getting is static. No reception. Sorry. Peace.

Also, please stop calling people idiots. It's not adding to the debate, violates forum rules, and is making this thread not enjoyable. Focus on the points, not the man.

 

[Yehoodi]

Attorney for Aaron Hernandez finally speaks up

You figure the press is lying about the first bold and/or Fee doesn't really know about the second?

you realize don't you that you are quoting a defense attorney . . . so let me get this straight, so that I know where you are coming from the standpoint of what is true and not true . . . the next time a defense attorney in any case, highly publicized or not, states to the media that "my client is innocent of these charges" before, like in this case, the trial has even started, we are supposed to believe the attorney and expect the trial judge to enter a required finding of not guilty even before the Commonwealth present any evidence?

I think both you and I know to what extent we can take in consideration the comments of counsel prior to any proceedings and whether or not we should expect said comments to be binding in our discussions. . .

 

[belichick010405]

I know you're responding to me, and I see you are typing or cutting and pasting a lot of words and stuff, but all I'm getting is static. No reception. Sorry. Peace.

Also, please stop calling people idiots. It's not adding to the debate, violates forum rules, and is making this thread not enjoyable. Focus on the points, not the man.

Those are the relevant precedents and rules regarding the withholding of court docket information and investigatory information to 3rd parties, including the media.

Ok - I will stop calling Andy an idiot. With that said - I don't play gotcha games which is what their responses are when they want to try and make someone look wrong and is what they continuously do/

 

[belichick010405]

“The privilege is not absolute” and “may be ‘be vitiated by misconduct on the newspapers’ part, but that misconduct must amount to more than negligent, or even knowing, republication of an inaccurate official statement. To defeat the privilege, a plaintiff must either show that the publisher does not give a fair and accurate report of the official statement [or action], or malice.’” Howell v. Enterprise Publ. Co., LLC, 455 Mass. at 651 n.8, 920 N.E.2d at 13 n.8, quoting Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2003).

Newspapers are on “solid ground” when they report on “formal (as opposed to informal) governmental (as op- posed to private) proceedings and actions.” Howell v. Enterprise Publ. Co., LLC, 455 Mass. at 655–656, 920 N.E.2d at 17. In such cases, “the privilege extends to reports of official actions based on information pro- vided by nonofficial third-party sources.” Id. at 658, 920 N.E.2d at 18.

“If, however, the source is an unofficial or anonymous one, a report based on that source runs a risk that the underlying official action will not be accurately and fairly described by the source, and therefore will not be protected by the privilege, or that the information provided will go beyond the bounds of the official action and into unprivileged territory” (footnote omitted). Id. at 659, 920 N.E.2d at 19. “Whether a report was fair and accurate is a matter of law to be determined by a judge unless there is a basis for divergent views” (citation omitted). Id. at 661, 920 N.E.2d at 21.

 

[Deus Irae]

you realize don't you that you are quoting a defense attorney . . .

Of course. I'm not sure how that's supposed to change the questions I asked you.

so let me get this straight, so that I know where you are coming from the standpoint of what is true and not true . . . the next time a defense attorney in any case, highly publicized or not, states to the media that "my client is innocent of these charges" before, like in this case, the trial has even started, we are supposed to believe the attorney and expect the trial judge to enter a required finding of not guilty even before the Commonwealth present any evidence?

What I quoted was not the defense attorney making that particular statement. What I quoted was a defense attorney, one of the two actual "parties", speaking publicly. In other words, I produced actual stuff from one the actual people and asked you about it.

I think both you and I know to what extent we can take in consideration the comments of counsel prior to any proceedings and whether or not we should expect said comments to be binding in our discussions. . .

I think you chose to avoid answering my questions because the answers undercut your assumptions and claims from earlier. Clearly we have more than just a report from the media there. We have a statement from one party to the issues. Therefore, your

I just don't understand how some on this board claim proof positive cause some media guy says so and then discount another's point as it is only substantiated by what some media guy says . . . seems a little inconsistent to me . . .

fails.


There's no need for you to answer the second question. It's clear that you think the defense will lie, publicly, about the existence of the warrant.

 

[Ring 6]

You are an idiot. Yes, you are.

So I will take that as yes you did say that and yes you are now embarrassed by it?
Someone asked who made a comment, and I remembered it was you. You seem to want to find fault in me for that. Deflect much?